Its true that you do not need to be a lawyer to see the discrepancies in the much fought case against the DPP's competent. But there is a danger in doing that because you will not proceed further from where you stand now. You will be barking like hell but you need to get credible evidence upon which you can rely on, otherwise there is nothing you and others can do.

As some other writes has observed there is a big difference between stupilated facts and credible evidence. You need the later to re-try the case. Be reminded that Mr. Sasako's facts still miserably lack good evidence.

The point is if the Carol Edwards Case or the other goes to court, it will still be thrown out for the same reasons - there are no 'credible evidence' to suggest the Carol Edwards was the driver. At the end it will be a waste of money. time and effort.

Mr. Sasako has said much about the evidence which he claim to be sufficient, however on the face of those evidence, they still do not have the merits to have the case re-tried. In other words, Mr. Sasako's effort in digging the case is infact not sufficient and to give him a thumbs up is too early a judgment to mak e- Mr. Sasako might have his own AGENDAS or BENEFITS of what he is doing.

So if Mr.Sasako and those who pull their noses behind him, want to see this case re-tried you need to do much more than that, otherwise your efforts will still be useless, and if there are no credible evidence other than 'mi herem oketa talem' or mere assumption as to what happen, improper inferences and conclusion, you all will still be shouting in emptiness.